Competing Through Online Service Failures and Recovery Strategies

Introduction And Context

The literature on service failures and recovery strategies is focussed on understanding the perspectives of customers’ explanations viewed from the provider’s viewpoint (Parasuraman et al., 2005; Zhu et al., 2013). The provider’s outlook appears to have been anticipated, being mainly approached as two different performers, in order to excel consumer’s explanations (Grewal et al., 2008; Huang et al., 2013). Consumers have been conceptualised as experiencing entirely the same treatment with service failures and recovery strategies, with limited exceptions affecting the subjective view of the occurrence (Maxham & Netemeyer, 2002). A review of the literature describes the experience of service failure-recovery as a five-stage procedure: a service failure occurs, recovery expectations arise, recovery strategies are provided, and recovery and post-recovery behaviour is evaluated. Conversely, forming an understanding of the consumer is predominantly related to particular processes, affecting explanations succeeded to the missing stage (Mohr et al., 2006). Accordingly, consumer experience accounts for particular backgrounds which exceed the possibility of further descriptive factors (Rio-Lanza et al., 2009; Mattila Choi, 2008). Much of io-Lanza et al., 2009; Mattila & Choi, 2008). Much of the relevant literature has been developed using context-free methods and positivist ontological views and consumers responses are typically concentrated and organised. This would suggest that service failure and recovery strategies are related as iterative experiences. Moreover, the customer’s experience is anticipated during service failure-recovery. Consequently, Miller et al. (2000) demonstrated that the literature on service failure and recovery strategies is recognised through the attempts of academics to assign customer perceptions in service failures and recovery to objective facts.

Nevertheless, the literature underscores a number of contrasting and contradictory outcomes. It advises that consumers are heterogeneous and need to be managed subjectively (Diaz-Martin et al., 2008; Wang et al., 2011; Azemi & Ozuem, 2016). The existing literature on service failures and recovery strategies resonates significantly with the perceived advantages of service recovery which have been the subject of research. However, Rust & Oliver (2000) described the suggestive outcomes as affirming that acceptable recoveries might be harmful to the service provider. This indicates how distinctive the consumers are in reality and advises a contextual method for handling service failures and recovery strategies phenomena in general and consumers in a specific context. The literature in electronic media is highly reinforced by an espistemological orientation (McCarthy et al., 2011). Electronic media literature appears to have established the underpinnings to research into service failures and recovery strategies while the onset of the internet has exposed offline service failures and recovery strategies as distinct from traditional offline practice traits (Salle et al., 2015; Ozuem, Thomas and Lancaster, 2016). It is suggested that computer-mediated marketing environments (CMMEs) have become empowered, allowing consumers to develop insights and act on means of highly individual orientation (Ellis-Chadwick & Chaffey, 2012). It underlines the subjectivity of consumers’ insights and relates the service failures and recovery strategies occurrences to experience with uncertain resultsrategies occurrences to experience. Moreover, vendor observation of consumers is highlighted, relating the service failures-recovery occurrence to a combined experience between the customer and the provider.